Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter urtalkinstupid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Pull Push
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around questioning the traditional view of gravity as a pulling force, proposing instead a "push theory" where sub-atomic particles, particularly neutrinos, exert pressure on objects. The theory suggests that when an object, like a tennis ball, is thrown, it experiences less pressure from neutrinos on one side, leading to a net force that pushes it back down. The idea challenges the notion that gravity is a fundamental force, positing that it may not exist as commonly understood and is instead governed by sub-atomic pressure. The author invites criticism and experimentation to explore this hypothesis further. Overall, the conversation highlights a speculative yet intriguing alternative perspective on gravity's nature.
  • #151
terrabyte:
get it right.. I'm 15 not 17.

it shows...

and from now on please just post ur ideas about physics and not ur opinions because u make me want to post mine. and they last time i did i got a bad post report and it had to be taken off so just STFU if u don't have anything to say about the f_____ physics.

i was just responding to a post. the argument was there, so i posted my thoughts on the matter. you don't like the way forums work where people are free to post their ideas, thoughts, opinions, and conjectures, then you might want to try something along the lines of solitude with a book. I'm sure it'd be worthwhile for you to invest in such an activity. we're not here to coddle you.

First, I would like to respond to terrabyte's post. terrabyte, would a scenario help you see what I'm talking about? Let's make it reality based also! Take the sun and earth. The gravitational pull of the sun on the Earth and vice-versa is a force. Ok, now, condense the sun. What happens? It's volume gets smaller, it has the same wait, and now, it is more dense. Now, the Earth can get CLOSER to the sun.

but it doesn't. it has no reason to.

When it does get closer, it's harder for the Earth to move back, because the sun's center of gravity is more concentrated. Newton's equations can't prove that this stronger force exists. This is only true, because his equation choose to neglect that density has an altering effect on gravity.

they didn't choose to neglect it. it simply DOESN'T have an affect. you're talking about getting "closer" and that IS covered by the formula given. of course stuff doesn't make sense when you're not using the variables provided to describe what's going on.

Now, let's kick this up a notch. Take a neutrn star. Condense it down to a string of plank's length. Same mass, smaller volume. Before, light could escape the neutron star's gravitational pull, but now, that light is able to get closer, it becomes harder for light to pull away from the string, because its center of gravity is more concntrated.

but light traveling the same distance from it pre-compressed is still affected the same amount. there is no argument as per things being "closer" to the gravitational object. that's very well covered in the equation provided.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
You have failed to observe that density is the factor that reduces this distance between the two objects.
 
  • #153
uhh...

how so? we measure distances from the center of objects, not the surfaces. compression would not alter the computational distances.
 
  • #154
russ said:
Point of clarification (I want little to do with this thread due to urtalkinstupid's attitude, but I'll help you out) - Density is irrelevant, because gravity calculations are often (always?) done assuming a point mass

unless you're inside an object or close enough to a LARGE object to be affected by peripherary pulls then it's pretty safe to do so. so that's what they do
 
  • #155
gravity and density

When light encounters a neutron star, the color of the neutron star is given off, because the light doesn't reach the center of gravity. When the neutron star condenses into a black hole, the light is able to move towards the center of gravity, because the object becoming more dense allows this to happen. The closer you are to the center of gravity, the more attractive force. Why, because the distance is shorter. Why, because the object is more dense. By point mass, do you mean a point (smaller version of singularity) with no volume?
 
  • #156
When light encounters a neutron star, the color of the neutron star is given off, because the light doesn't reach the center of gravity. When the neutron star condenses into a black hole, the light is able to move towards the center of gravity, because the object becoming more dense allows this to happen.

going to assume you're talking about light on a collision course with the "star". I'm not sure you could even tell if light was not simply traveling "through" the star and coming out the other side...

The closer you are to the center of gravity, the more attractive force. Why, because the distance is shorter. Why, because the object is more dense. By point mass, do you mean a point (smaller version of singularity) with no volume?

yes, as purely a computational process, not an actual universal object. it's a convenience.
 
  • #157
Convience does not always lead to accurate conclusions.

Density does have an affect on the amount an object pulls. How hard is that concept to grasp? A more dense object has a smaller volume, therefore it is able to make the distance between the two center of gravities smaller thus making it divide into the masses more. Say you have two objects that are attracted to each other, and they are right next to each other. Condense one object, then the other is able to move closer to the condensed objects center of gravity, causing a more attractive force. Density determines how close an object can get to another objects center of gravity. Since distance is measured from this center of gravity, I'm sure density is a factor.
 
  • #158
density makes NO difference if you're calculating using point masses.

you can say what you're saying until you're blue in the face but it's not going to change the fact that this is the way we calculate things.

there's very FEW instances where you would try to calculate the gravitational effects of an object INSIDE another object that would warrant a deviation from the point-mass system, and in those cases we would use a geometry-mass or particle-particle gravity computations (a lot more number crunching) but for general use and theoretical purposes we have no reason to go there.

in other words you're barking up a tree with no squirrel on the wrong continent.

mass and distance determine gravitational effects. density is NOT what you're trying to make it, "a factor"
 
  • #159
So, does being closer to another objects center of gravity make the force of attraction stronger?
 
  • #160
when u say that it shows that I'm 15, I'm assuming u mean it shows that I'm younger than u and i still know as much, if not more, about this subject as u do. i don't have a problem with u posting ur opinions (well only a little.. hehe) but let's try to keep it more physics related and i will too. and why would i choose to be alone with a book when there are people on the internet in need of re-education??

now onto the physics.. density is a factor though. classic example: take a rubber sheet (space-time) and place a bowling ball (star) on it. then put a cue ball on there to represent a planet or what have u. now condense the bowling ball to the size of a marble (it will still have the same mass) and the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity. since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger.
 
  • #161
Entropy! Hey, boiiii! You boi! You have asked a question and contradicting yourself when you tried to explain what is happening...? Niiiiice! More neutrinos passing through means more pressure acting on the bottom side. This leads to competition between the low momentum neutrions and high momentum neutrinos. Making Earth have less gravity. Can you provide me some information, so I'm able to explain what you want? Speed of Jupiter's orbit? Rotational velocity of Jupiter? ! (uhhhh...not all the way so...song? )

Argh! You're so childish! Now I know why russ isn't getting involved!

How did I contradict myself? I only asked a question you failed to answer.

More neutrinos passing through means more pressure acting on the bottom side. This leads to competition between the low momentum neutrions and high momentum neutrinos. Making Earth have less gravity.

What? So now neutrinos compete with each other? Can you elaborate.

Making Earth have less gravity. Can you provide me some information, so I'm able to explain what you want? Speed of Jupiter's orbit? Rotational velocity of Jupiter?

Why is it you say in you're push theory the more dense an object is the more "gravity" it has, although objects that are less dense than the Earth have more "gravity"?

Newton was aiming or a law degree in college. He was not a physicists! He read upon books and made everything up from observations. OMFG, SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A PHYSICISTS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE UP STUFF! He also had a bad childhood. Who's to say that Newton's theories wern't hypothetical? Every idea is very HYPOTHETICAL at first.

Newton was a physicist! He held the freaking Lucasian Chair of Mathematics in Cambridge for crying out loud! Read your history!

Yes, neutrinos are weak, and they rarely interact. Judging by the amount that are theorized to pass through our body every second, it wouldn't hurt to make the assumption that this many in such a small area have to provide an effect on our bodies and other masses.

Yes it would! In the detectors they use 1000+ tonnes of heavy water and only about 10 neutinos interact with all that water in one day! And those are only neutrinos with relatively high momenta. Your body gets hit with less than 1 neutino per month on average!

Density does have an affect on the amount an object pulls. How hard is that concept to grasp? A more dense object has a smaller volume, therefore it is able to make the distance between the two center of gravities smaller thus making it divide into the masses more.
now onto the physics.. density is a factor though. classic example: take a rubber sheet (space-time) and place a bowling ball (star) on it. then put a cue ball on there to represent a planet or what have u. now condense the bowling ball to the size of a marble (it will still have the same mass) and the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity. since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger.

True you have a greater warp at the center but now the warps where the particles use to be has decreased because the particles aren't there anymore. So you end up with the same amount of warp just in a smaller more consentrated area. Is that so hard to grasp?
 
Last edited:
  • #162
ur body gets hit with only 1 neutrino a month?? are u sure: http://www.princetonol.com/groups/55plus/review-listing-2003-4/meyers.html

this guy with a PHD in PHYSICS says 500 trillion pass through our bodies every second... he also explains why we can only detect a few neutrinos in the detectors. WOW!

and no it's not hard to grasp but since it's in a smaller area the other bodies around it are pulled further down into space-time's dent... thus gravity's effects are increased
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #163
gravity

Entropy said:
Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

You contradicted yourself by trying to say that since Jupiter is less dense less neutrinos passing through. This would result in more gravity. With you saying that more neutrinos pass through the Earth this would make gravity less. With more neutrinos passing through the mass, there are more neutrinos with less momentum impacting the neutrinos with more momentum providing "competition" as they cancel each other out in a sense. I think what you meant was that Jupiter is less dense, and with Jupiter being less dense not as many neutrinos are absorbed, which means that gravity is weaker. Earth is the one with more density by the push model of gravity. Can you provide me with Jupiter's orbital velocity and rotational velocity? Then, I'll be able to explain to you why Jupiter has more gravity, though it is less dense.

Newton was not a physicists until after he thought of all of his theories on gravity. Maybe you should read more.

When I say an object is more dense and has more push, I mean that when the sub-atomic particles go through the denser object, the neutrinos that interact lose momentum. The denser the object the more likelyhood that it will interact and lose momentum. When you have neutrinos with low momentum going against high momentum, the amount of push that can be expected is their difference.
 
  • #164
when u say that it shows that I'm 15, I'm assuming u mean it shows that I'm younger than u and i still know as much, if not more, about this subject as u do.

i couldn't care less how much MORE you knew about the WRONG theories than me. why would you think that would bother me?

now onto the physics.. density is a factor though. classic example: take a rubber sheet (space-time) and place a bowling ball (star) on it. then put a cue ball on there to represent a planet or what have u. now condense the bowling ball to the size of a marble (it will still have the same mass) and the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity. since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger.

where do you get that idea?

the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity

where's your experimental data? all current models maintain that compression doesn't create gravity

since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger

you're compressing the mass, not the distances. and even if you DID decide to compress the distances (for whatever illogical reason) that is well covered in our existing model.

...

when i say it SHOWS that you're 15, i meant it in purely in the sense that your maturity level speaks volumes. seriously, "STFU" ? no one says that to anyone in the "adult" world.
 
  • #165
where did i get what idea?? i put several in that quote so SPECIFY. if that object is the same mass but gets smaller the other objects will sink farther in the dent. this is because the compressed object isn't taking up as much space so the other objects can fall in more. (please give me links to ur computer models so i can prove them wrong). and the space that object takes up gets compressed. LOGIC will tell u the distance btw the objects will decrease. so again.. give me links to those comp models so i can study them (not that i haven't studied the concept of space-time for several years now) because i want to see what u've been reading. also.. have u visited
http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/ and what's ur take on the whole neutrino discussion??
and when did i ever say that ppl in the "adult" world say "STFU"? i may be a little immature but since u keep bringing it up it shows that u are also immature. plus u put these really corny and cliched statements in ur posts and that's not what i'd call mature either, terrabyte. "in other words you're barking up a tree with no squirrel on the wrong continent." HAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA- I'm laughing AT u, dork
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #166
You contradicted yourself by trying to say that since Jupiter is less dense less neutrinos passing through. This would result in more gravity. With you saying that more neutrinos pass through the Earth this would make gravity less. With more neutrinos passing through the mass, there are more neutrinos with less momentum impacting the neutrinos with more momentum providing "competition" as they cancel each other out in a sense. I think what you meant was that Jupiter is less dense, and with Jupiter being less dense not as many neutrinos are absorbed, which means that gravity is weaker. Earth is the one with more density by the push model of gravity. Can you provide me with Jupiter's orbital velocity and rotational velocity? Then, I'll be able to explain to you why Jupiter has more gravity, though it is less dense.

Re-read what I said.

Me said:
Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

I said Jupiter is less dense AND has less neutrinos passing though it. Where did I say Jupiter is less dense BECAUSE it has less neutinos? Read things more carefully. Oh and Jupiter has just as many cosmic neutrinos (high momentum) as Earth and less solar neutinos (low momentum). So if these neutrinos create and equibrium on Earth, how can they on Jupiter or any other world with stronger gravity for that matter if the forcers (form neutrinos) on those worlds are less?

Newton was not a physicists until after he thought of all of his theories on gravity.

I said he was a physicists and you just agreed with me. Proving yourself wrong yet again. Besides many people start developing their theories while they're in college and not techniquely physicists yet.

the neutrinos that interact lose momentum

Even though experiments show they don't. Look when a neutrino interacts it loses all its momentum to the particle it hits and then disappears.

ur body gets hit with only 1 neutrino a month?? are u sure: http://www.princetonol.com/groups/5...3-4/meyers.html

this guy with a PHD in PHYSICS says 500 trillion pass through our bodies every second... he also explains why we can only detect a few neutrinos in the detectors. WOW!

Yeah they PASS RIGHT THROUGH US! They don't INTERACT! Thanks for proving my point!

and no it's not hard to grasp but since it's in a smaller area the other bodies around it are pulled further down into space-time's dent... thus gravity's effects are increased

Yeah its pulled down more at that center point! My point is that the over all space-time warp it creates every where is constant, just more consentrated at the center. Maybe if you'd read our posts more clearly you'd know that.

where did i get what idea?? i put several in that quote so SPECIFY. if that object is the same mass but gets smaller the other objects will sink farther in the dent. this is because the compressed object isn't taking up as much space so the other objects can fall in more. (please give me links to ur computer models so i can prove them wrong). and the space that object takes up gets compressed. LOGIC will tell u the distance btw the objects will decrease. so again.. give me links to those comp models so i can study them (not that i haven't studied the concept of space-time for several years now) because i want to see what u've been reading. also.. have u visited
http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/

This guy doesn't know anything because he "assumes" people think gravity is a "pull" which it isn't, its just a geometric effect of space-time. The word pull is just a term of convinence.

and when did i ever say that ppl in the "adult" world say "STFU"? i may be a little immature but since u keep bringing it up it shows that u are also immature. plus u put these really corny and cliched statements in ur posts and that's not what i'd call mature either, terrabyte. "in other words you're barking up a tree with no squirrel on the wrong continent." HAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA- I'm laughing AT u, dork

Whatever you say... :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #167
have fun while you can, i guess.

i'm in no mood to look after someone's children. I'm not getting paid to teach you physics. I've done what i can to try and explain things to you, but you refuse to learn the basics before jumping ahead and then wondering why things don't work the way you "think" they should.

good luck in life
 
  • #168
explain to me why we can view their collisions with particles in those detectors (neutrinos do interact with us) also u were wrong about the amount of neutrinos passing through our bodies and i used that site to prove u wrong because u worship anyone with a phd in physics. the reason u won't challenge that guy's site(jessep) is because U CAN'T. he makes too much sense and u know that ur theory is failing and he makes the better argument. and terrabyte maybe u should look after ur own kids better, especially if they're taking ur advice on life.
 
  • #169
terrabye...you got served

Entropy! Hey boii! :biggrin:
Sailor Jupiter was cool! Earth is more dense, ergo it absorbs more of the neutrinos momentum allowing the neutrinos pushing down on objects to have more force. This difference in momentum is the net amount of momentum applied. Now, Jupiter is less dense. Less neutrinos are absorbed, ergo more neutrinos pass through causing a decrease in the net momentum. THIS IS WEIRD YOU SAY. This can be explained. That is not what really is going on. So, if you would, answer my questions. My answer relies on your answer so make sure thay are suffice enough for me to use them. :biggrin: What is Jupiter's orbital velocity relative to the sun? What is Jupiter's rotational velocity relative to it's axis?

What I'm trying to conclude about Newton is that you don't have to have a degree in Physics to think of ideas. He started with math, and he thought about the planets. He was not a physicists; he originally wanted to get a degree in law. WEIRDED OUT! How does this tie into me? I'm not a physicists, and I have ideas about how things work also. Dot, Dot, Dot.

Pull due to an objects mass or an object's mass causing an inclination on space-time? Two different concepts, so "pull" is not a term of convience. Inclination is slope. Pull is...well is not well defined. Imaginary rope attached to two objects center of gravity? So, let's "pull the plug" to this concept of pull and trash it.
 
Last edited:
  • #170
here travis: http://www.surf2000.de/user/f-heeke/figure2.html info about jupiter...
my fav was sailor neptune!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #171
explain to me why we can view their collisions with particles in those detectors (neutrinos do interact with us)

They interact rarely with matter! They only get 10 hits a day on average like I said in my pervious post!

i used that site to prove u wrong because u worship anyone with a phd in physics. the reason u won't challenge that guy's site(jessep) is because U CAN'T. he makes too much sense and u know that ur theory is failing and he makes the better argument. and terrabyte maybe u should look after ur own kids better, especially if they're taking ur advice on life.

When did I say anyone with a phd is RIGHT. I said wait until you are knowledgeable in the subject before you seriously start to argue with them. And where on that web page does it say he has a phd?

And I can't argue with him? Well looky here:

For example: In 1964 I predicted that everything had an energy field. Twenty nine years later, I heard on TV that everything "really" did have an energy field. Why did he use the word "really" unless he was referring to my prediction?

Oh he saw it on TV! TV is alway right! I mean they wouldn't put it on the air if it wasn't true? Was it even from a credible show? Sounds like a real professional if he is taking his information from TV shows.

Look everything has always been thought to have an energy field since E=mc^2.

From NewsAlert 7-7-04:

A rare glimpse back in time into the universe's early evolution has
revealed something startling: mature, fully formed galaxies where
scientists expected to discover little more than infants.

This is what I have been trying to tell scientists for fifty plus years.

Proof? Does he have any proof that's what he said 50 year ago? No.

Some years back I said I suspected that atomic time was related to our velocity through space, and if the velocity changed, the time would change. I believe they are now finding this to be true. If Einstein is right...atomic time will not change because he says that everything moves space...so... "there would be no movement through space:" It would be moving with space. So this might turn out to be another way to prove my theory. My explanation is the only solution there can be, but it will be many years before people will have the ability to understand it. I can't read their minds so I don't know what they do not understand.

What?! Einstein said that time slows as you move faster and he was right. Now he is just re-wording it and saying he came up with it. Unbelieveable! Atomic time will not change (from are perspective) if we are moving with the clock!

My theory is the only theory that predicts dark matter, dark energy,

Really? Funny that there are dozens upon dozens of theory that also predict dark matter and energy. Even funnier that dark matter/energy isn't needed in our current model of the universe anymore! So I guess he was wrong here.

In the middle sixties I wrote a letter to a science magazine (I still have the receipt) and said there would be a problem. The problem is this: If a spaceship is in outer space its velocity will seem to change depending on whether it is traveling with or against the rotation of another planet. They did have problems. If this is getting boring it is because there is so much support.

What?! People back then already knew this, give me a break! A spaceship will move with the Earth because it inherts the Earth's rotational speed because it launched off of it. And problems with what? Why doesn't he elaborate?! Because he just assumes that any minior problem was because they didn't follow what he said, regaurdless of what the problem was!

In 1953 I was listening to the news on the radio when it was announced that the ground crews working on jet engines were receiving lung damage from the high frequency sound waves from jet engines. This would not surprise me today, but at that time, I thought that sound was nothing. I was surprised because I thought: "How could sound...which was nothing...destroy lung tissue which was something?" Well, like all Christians, at that time, I thought that anything was possible; so I thought: "Maybe everything is made from nothing?" Then I closed my eyes to try and picture what space would be like without anything in it.

Oh this is rich... Sound is something! Its the vibration of air molecules for crying out loud!

I realized that "Space" has to be endless. Not so much as just being endless, but the fact that there is no other place for anything to come from. So If my theory is wrong, why does it look like all my predictions, and assumptions, are coming true?

Funny that most experiments, oberservations and theories say space is not endless. So why does he say that his theory is coming true when all data says its not? Maybe because he doesn't know what his talking about?

This was important to me because I just knew there had to be a way and I just knew that I would find it because as far as I am concerned I was certain my theory was right...and I did find it...It was in late 1953 or 54...I predicted to an older brother that there had to be a way to package energy and that I would find it. A short time later I noticed a younger brother blowing smoke-rings...I knew this had to be the answer. Then in 1957, I read in the news that hydrogen gas under certain conditions would take the shape of a doughnut. This was support for the smoke ring theory...I then predicted that all stable particles are shaped like a smoke-ring, or are made up of particles shaped like a smoke ring.

So it only "looks" like a doughnut sometimes. And what experiment said this? Why not all the time like he said? Why doesn't he give more information? And notice its the "gas" that takes that shape, not the particles!

What we think of as suction is not suction at all, it is pushing. We expand a cavity and call it suction, but all we are doing is going through the same motions. We expand a cavity against atmospheric pressure, and this is pushing. At the same time it is reducing the pressure inside the cavity. We can't relate to true suction because we don't experience it. It would be a new kind of an exerience if we could experience it.

And to end this I will say it yet again: yes there is not true suction and gravity isn't a suction, its an effect of space-time!

I could go on and on pointing out the flaws in this guy's pathetic excuse for a theory. But I've got a life and I could write a whole book on why this guy is wrong.
 
  • #172
Sailor Jupiter was cool! Earth is more dense, ergo it absorbs more of the neutrinos momentum allowing the neutrinos pushing down on objects to have more force. This difference in momentum is the net amount of momentum applied.

Thats the thing! Even if all the neutrinos that got through the Earth gave all there momentum! It still wouldn't account for the force of gravity! Neutrinos only have about 5% the momentum of the sun's light!
 
  • #173
that whole site is pointless propaganda in turquoise and pink. complete with all the expected sweeping generalizations, false analysis, and baseless claims.

no wonder it's capturing the imaginations of 15 yr old kids. it's speaking the on the precise frequency to indoctrine their fragile minds.

RebelliousTeen1: OMFG Grownups are teh suq, we R teh smarter tehn them, whoa! this idea is KEWLZ look at it PUSHING Planets ROX!
RebelliousTeen2: Taht maykez senz! My yung impresinistic mind can undRstnd Push Bettar! God Peepul who spend monies and life on edukayshun R Stupid this guy didNT and he is SMARTAR!

good lord...
 
  • #174
Ouch. The truth hurts, eh kiddies?
 
  • #175
gravity

Sailor Jupiter OWNS Sailor Neptune...end of arguement.

Considering the amount of neutrinos that go through the earth. Multiply that number by the momentum to get an approximate amount as to how much momentum neutrinos have. Many pass through Earth and are absorbed every second. Many pass through and interact with our body, as well. As for the mystery as to why Jupiter has less of a force through my theory, I got that covered. :biggrin: As you can tell from the site that beatrix provided, Jupiter has a large equitorial velocity, as well as a high orbital velocity. The planet itself has a high momentum. Once neutrinos interact with the surface, their net momentum is already affected. As they pass through the surface and are absorbed, they have little to no momentum as they come out on the other side, allowing a greater push, therefore more "gravity." I already know you are going to argue against it, but I'll ellaborate after I hear your argument and your questions towards my idea.

Entropy said:
Even though experiments show they don't. Look when a neutrino interacts it loses all its momentum to the particle it hits and then disappears.
So, matter can be destroyed now? Is this what happens:
Neutrino Particle said:
Oh, I've ran out of momentum. Guess I'll just disappear in thin air
Weird...I didn't know that people who rode with Einstein or Newton believed that energy and matter could be destroyed or created!
 
  • #176
FIRST (i'll get to jessep later) the only reason we don't view the collisions more often is because the neutrinos change to a harder to detect flavor by the time they reach the earth. scientists are going to come up with better ways of detecting them. so i don't see ur point. i didn't say jessep has a phd i said that meyers guy has a phd and it says it right at the top of the page (since u can't read).


stupid don't even go there... sailor neptune was a mysterious OUTER SCOUT with extraordinary super-extreme to the max powers! sailor Jupiter was a lame inner senshi who mostly just cheered on sailor moon... and that's the end of that...
 
Last edited:
  • #177
wow terrabyte.. u can really impersonate urtalkinstupid and me! it must have taken u a whole day to take the words u normally spell incorrectly, string them together, and make a HUMOROUS joke about the way we talk. and entropy calling us kiddies when ur about our age? that's really funny.
entropy, jessep is not some loser who makes up stuff (tv show, writing into the magazine.. etc.). many of the quotes u took were incomplete ideas that he fills in later. also.. u totally misread a lot of the things he wrote. he said he "THOUGHT" (past tense) that sound was nothing. so that doesn't work for ur case. another thing, he was saying that no one thought energy fields effected gravity until he thought of it. so now what?? if u have that hard of a time grasping what he's trying to say, don't feel bad. many ppl can't either but u can direct ur questions towards HIM and I'm sure he'll answer u.

and yes TERRABYTE.. the pretty colors did appeal to my young and impressionable mind.. but considering what i know about the universe because of it, i wouldn't say it's a bad thing..
but the real question is, what was appealing to u when u were my age because u don't know that much about physics now, what u think u know is wrong, and u can't answer my questions about neutrinos.. probably because the first time u found out about them was from- OMG- a 15 yr old kid...
 
  • #178
could it be because neutrinos don't affect us that's why we've never heard of them?

no! scandalous!

where is this guy's dated published papers? anyone can say PFAH! The internet? i thought of that 100 years ago! E=MC^2?! that idea was mine long before einstein was even BORN!

the guy is a fraud. he has no ideas worth pursuing. and he's going to die a sad lonely unknown individual.

i'm done here anyways. you have convinced me that you're just teenage kids trying to get your jollies off of annoying people.

you win, rejoice in your ignorance. i don't care anymore
 
  • #179
Weird...I didn't know that people who rode with Einstein or Newton believed that energy and matter could be destroyed or created!

Yes that is what happens! Because it gives its momentum away! Momentum is energy (energy is mass) and that energy is just transferred to the particle it hits and therefore disapears! In other words it gets absorbed.

You know nothing about physics good lord! You can even comprehend the absorbsion of a particle!

Considering the amount of neutrinos that go through the earth. Multiply that number by the momentum to get an approximate amount as to how much momentum neutrinos have. Many pass through Earth and are absorbed every second. Many pass through and interact with our body, as well.

Let see if you're right:

Average neutrino flux at the Earth's surface:

\nu_f = 5 \times 10^{10}

Average Energy per Neutrino:

E_\nu = 0.81{}MeV = 1.30 \time 10^{-13}{}J

{\nu_f} \cdot {E_\nu} = 0.007{}{J} / {m^2 \cdot {s}}

0.007 J/m^2 s do you know how little pressure that is? Thats assuming all neutrinos give all there momentum! In real life you only get hit by about 1 neutrino every month! How do you explain that? You can't! Can you?

Bam! Your theory is crushed! What you going to do make up some another magic reason with no explanation to prove you're not wrong? What are there really more neutrinos and its just coincidence that no experiments support you, no math supports you, and no real physicist supports you!

entropy, jessep is not some loser who makes up stuff (tv show, writing into the magazine.. etc.). many of the quotes u took were incomplete ideas that he fills in later.

Nope. If I did take them out of context, explain them then. Why didn't you just explain in the first place? Whats that? You can't?

he said he "THOUGHT" (past tense) that sound was nothing. so that doesn't work for ur case.

Really? So its okay for him to form theories without any knowledge on the subject but somehow its wrong for Newton (even though Newton did have info on the subject).

Thats the last straw. You guys are hopeless. I've tried to be patient and tactful to you guys but you just won't listen. I would normally try to help and understand people no matter how much I disagree with them, but you guys are far to childish.

Go ahead and believe you're theory and we'll see where it gets you.

Goodbye.
 
Last edited:
  • #180
terrabyte: neutrinos DO affect us... u've never heard of them because sadly, u haven't studied physics as much as me.. (the rebellious teen) and the only thing i get my jollies off of is listening to u try to put up a reasonable argument with ur inferior concepts of physics. i thought u were going to be leaving when u said "good luck with life". why the heck did u even come back?? HAHAHA... and u say u don't care anymore?? i guess it WOULD be devastating to find out that everything u thought u knew about the universe is wrong...

entropy: why do u keep saying that neutrinos only come in contact with us once a month? u don't believe that site i gave u? real life is that trillions and trillions of neutrinos pass through us every second. since u helped mathematically prove they exert a pressure u just helped support my theory! wow, that was really tight! thanx. I'm not going to speak for jessep because that would be like me taking his ideas. he's the one with all the cash rewards so why no step up to his challenge and stop being weanie and just ask him urself?? and years from now, when ppl start refusing to just accept being spoon-fed einstein's fictional ideas, they will mock ur beliefs and turn to the superiority that is the push theory. i think that will get me very far in life. enjoy being wrong about the universe, entropy. when u're ready to know the truth... u know where to find me.. hehehe
 
Last edited:
  • #181
beatrix kiddo said:
terrabyte: neutrinos DO affect us... u've never heard of them because sadly, u haven't studied physics as much as me.. (the rebellious teen) and the only thing i get my jollies off of is listening to u try to put up a reasonable argument with ur inferior concepts of physics. i thought u were going to be leaving when u said "good luck with life". why the heck did u even come back?? HAHAHA... and u say u don't care anymore?? i guess it WOULD be devastating to find out that everything u thought u knew about the universe is wrong...

entropy: why do u keep saying that neutrinos only come in contact with us once a month? u don't believe that site i gave u? real life is that trillions and trillions of neutrinos pass through us every second. since u helped mathematically prove they exert a pressure u just helped support my theory! wow, that was really tight! thanx. I'm not going to speak for jessep because that would be like me taking his ideas. he's the one with all the cash rewards so why no step up to his challenge and stop being weanie and just ask him urself?? and years from now, when ppl start refusing to just accept being spoon-fed einstein's fictional ideas, they will mock ur beliefs and turn to the superiority that is the push theory. i think that will get me very far in life. enjoy being wrong about the universe, entropy. when u're ready to know the truth... u know where to find me.. hehehe

-He proved that IF all the neutrinos were absorbed by the Earth that they would give off .007 joules/m^2*s. That is an INCREDIBLY small amount. Along the lines of you "crushing" someone with a hair.

-If we're being pushed by the sun into the earth, why isn't the Earth being pushed as well? Wouldn't this nullify the effect of us being pushed into the earth?

-I've read about people who "challenge" people to prove them wrong. They argue somewhere along your lines, they take every logical argument and throw hundreds of random, unsupported facts at it. And that's if they even play by the rules, I've read of people saying they get to censor the evidence before it is judged!




But really, Entropy, Terrabyte, why did the average force go down when I compressed the points (see program on page 9 or 10)? It seems that density would be a significant factor when the object is very large in comparison to the distance between the center and the observer. (Note to 15 year olds: The force appears to go DOWN and not UP)
 
  • #182
i should have been more clear: 500 trillion neutrinos is just an estimate. there are far more neutrinos than that.. they are just unaccounted for. trillions and trillions (more) travel through us with "a velocity nearly equal to the speed of light" -foundations of astronomy pg. 167. entropy u forgot to put that in ur equation.. hmmm
 
  • #183
beatrix kiddo said:
i should have been more clear: 500 trillion neutrinos is just an estimate. there are far more neutrinos than that.. they are just unaccounted for. trillions and trillions (more) travel through us with "a velocity nearly equal to the speed of light" -foundations of astronomy pg. 167. entropy u forgot to put that in ur equation.. hmmm

What are you talking about? He put the neutrino's energy, which would include it's kinetic energy, in his equation.

E = mv^2/2, basic physics.

If 500 trillion is an estimate, why would there definitely be far more? Does it really matter if there are 500 trillion or 600 trillion if the VAST majority only pass through us without affecting us in any way?
 
  • #184
perhaps your observation is worth looking into, Alkatran. it could very well be true that compression reduces gravity, making the theory on how black holes are formed WRONG.

or perhaps the formula for gravity is indeed wrong.

or perhaps doing particle-location calculations for an object is wrong (though logically it's supposed to work)

i still say we need an expert's opinion on this one
 
  • #185
Entropy, thanks for proving me wrong...or so you think! Let me explain what you did and how it does not work. First, you used the wrong number of neutrinos. You should have used 5x10^{12} for the amount of neutrino flux on the earth.. Second, you only calculated the amount of energy a neutrino when it is at rest. You forgot to multiply that rest energy by the velocity at which the neutrino travels to get the momentum. Neutrinos travel at nearly the speed of light. So, 3x10^8m/s would be sufficient.

Here is your math revised:
\nu_f=5x10^{10}m^2/s
E_\nu=.81MeV
\vec{v}_\nu=3x10^8m/s
E_\nu=.81MeV \cdot 1.602^{-13}=1.29762^{-13} MeV
E_\nu=\nu_f*E_\nu=0.0064881 J \cdot m^2 \cdot s
Now for their momentum.
\vec{p}=E_\nu \cdot \vec{v}_\nu=1946430 J \cdot m^3 \cdot s

That's just what i got. Hey, I know that there is a possibility that I'm wrong. If that be the case, I'll...I dunno. Yes, I know about emission and absorption. The neutrino emitts its energy only to be absorbed by another particle. It does not "disappear," rather it passes on its energy.

Entropy: I see where you got 5x10^{10}m^2/s; you converted it form cm^2/s hehe
 
Last edited:
  • #186
urtalkinstupid said:
Entropy, thanks for proving me wrong...or so you think! Let me explain what you did and how it does not work. First, you used the wrong number of neutrinos. You should have used 5x10^{12} for the amount of neutrino flux on the earth.. Second, you only calculated the amount of energy a neutrino when it is at rest. You forgot to multiply that rest energy by the velocity at which the neutrino travels to get the momentum. Neutrinos travel at nearly the speed of light. So, 3x10^8m/s would be sufficient.

Here is your math revised:
\nu_f=5x10^{12}
E_\nu=.81MeV
\vec{v}_\nu=3x10^8m/s
E_\nu=.81MeV \cdot 1.602^{-13}=1.29762^{-13} MeV
\Sigma_E_\nu=\nu_f*E_\nu=.64881J
You arrived at \Sigma_E_\nu=0.007J, because you had the wrong amount of neutrinos. This was as far as you got, because this is only the rest energy that the neutrinos emitt. Now, for their momentum.
\vec{p}=\Sigma_E_\nu \cdot \vec{v}_\nu=194643000J \cdot m \cdot s

That's just what i got. Hey, I know that there is a possibility that I'm wrong. If that be the case, I'll...I dunno. Yes, I know about emission and absorption. The neutrino emitts its energy only to be absorbed by another particle. It does not "disappear," rather it passes on its energy.

That'd be like being shot in the face with a cannon 5000 times a second. Of course, that's a massive underestimation.
 
  • #187
terrabyte said:
perhaps your observation is worth looking into, Alkatran. it could very well be true that compression reduces gravity, making the theory on how black holes are formed WRONG.

or perhaps the formula for gravity is indeed wrong.

or perhaps doing particle-location calculations for an object is wrong (though logically it's supposed to work)

i still say we need an expert's opinion on this one

I have a hard time believing no one has looked at this before... let's see if I can word this right:

Compressing an object reduces the gravity at a fixed point relative to its center because the increase in the square of the distance of the mass on the near side is greater than the decrease in the square of the distance of the mass on the far side.

I think that sentence has enough "of"s in there, haha.

Now that I think about it, it does make sense (oh no! assumption!) because, since the total curvature in one area is greater, for the total to stay the same the curvature in another area should be reduced, correct?
 
Last edited:
  • #188
according to your calculations, Mass is not the sum of an objects component masses

or gravity formula is somehow wrong :O
 
  • #189
Are we talking about when he made the program condensing the distance between the particles?
 
  • #190
\textcolor{blue}{\nu_f=5x10^{10} m^2s}
\textcolor{red}{E_\nu_e=.81 MeV\approx1.29762x10^{-13} J}
\textcolor{green}{\vec{v}_\nu_e=3x10^8 \frac{m}{s}}
\textcolor{purple}{\vec{p}=}\textcolor{red}{E_\nu_e} \cdot \textcolor{green}{\vec{v_\nu_e}}=\textcolor{red}{1.29762x10^{-13} J} \cdot \textcolor{green}{3.0x10^8 \frac{m}{s}}=3.89286x10^{-5} \frac{J \cdot m}{s}}
\vec{p} \cdot \textcolor{blue}{\nu_e}=3.89286x10^{-5} \frac{J \cdot m}{s} \cdot \textcolor{blue}{5x10^{10}m^2s}=1946430 J \cdot m^3

Neutrinos are able to emitt upto 1946430 J per ever cubic centimeter of earth. This is different from my first attempt. At first, I tried to calculate the momentum by multiplying the flux rate by the energy...That wasn't the proper way. So, this time I calculated the momentum and then determined how much energy a neutrino could emitt over a given area. Maybe this is right, maybe it is not. One things for sure, it's different from Entropy's calculation, which is not momentum at all. Alkatran, this is not as much energy as you think, but a constant flow of this calculation should be enough. Remember, this is only for solar neutrinos. They are not the only source. Our body is a source of neutrinos as well, but of a lesser magnitude.

Goodnight!
 
  • #191
urtalkinstupid said:
\textcolor{blue}{\nu_f=5x10^{10} m^2s}
\textcolor{red}{E_\nu_e=.81 MeV\approx1.29762x10^{-13} J}
\textcolor{green}{\vec{v}_\nu_e=3x10^8 \frac{m}{s}}
\textcolor{purple}{\vec{p}=}\textcolor{red}{E_\nu_e} \cdot \textcolor{green}{\vec{v_\nu_e}}=\textcolor{red}{1.29762x10^{-13} J} \cdot \textcolor{green}{3.0x10^8 \frac{m}{s}}=3.89286x10^{-5} \frac{J \cdot m}{s}}
\vec{p} \cdot \textcolor{blue}{\nu_e}=3.89286x10^{-5} \frac{J \cdot m}{s} \cdot \textcolor{blue}{5x10^{10}m^2s}=1946430 J \cdot m^3

Neutrinos are able to emitt upto 1946430 J per ever cubic centimeter of earth. This is different from my first attempt. At first, I tried to calculate the momentum by multiplying the flux rate by the energy...That wasn't the proper way. So, this time I calculated the momentum and then determined how much energy a neutrino could emitt over a given area. Maybe this is right, maybe it is not. One things for sure, it's different from Entropy's calculation, which is not momentum at all. Alkatran, this is not as much energy as you think, but a constant flow of this calculation should be enough. Remember, this is only for solar neutrinos. They are not the only source. Our body is a source of neutrinos as well, but of a lesser magnitude.

Goodnight!

First of all, that much energy (the amount per cubic METER, not centimeter) is what it would need to launch you to a height of 40 kilometers (assuming you weighed a bit less than 50 kilos). 40 kilometers. per cubic meter. per second.

This number is so obviously impossible that it can't be right.


Terrabyte:
The program does the following:
1 - Pick 2 random angles
2 - Calculate the inverse of the distance of a point at distance 1 along a line project along those angles.
3 - Calculate the inverse of the distance of a point at distance 0.5 along a line project along those angles. (compressed object)
*The inverse of the distance is the force if G*m1*m2 = 1
4 - Repeat about 10000 times
5 - Sum all of these results (all the 2s and all the 3s)
6 - Compare
Does this look correct?

Of course a computer program is NOT reality and any findings would need to be confirmed experimentally.
 
  • #192
urtalkinstupid said:
P = E*v

(the red and green equation)
P -> m/s*kg
E -> J -> m^2/s^2*kg
v -> m/s

E*v -> (m^2/s^2*kg)*(m/s) -> m^3/s^3*kg

Your units on both sides of the equation don't match and therefore the equation is wrong. Momentum is mass * speed, not energy * speed. If you want to use energy in momentum you need to divide it by c^2.

1 946 430/c^2 = 1 946 430/(9*10^14) = 2.16270 * 10^-9 or about 0.000000002 Joules.

Your last equation doesn't make any sense at all either. Your multiplying momentum by speed and getting energy*m^3 and THEN saying it's PER cubic meter?? P*v = m/s*kg*m/s = m^2/s^2*kg = J NOT J*m^3.

Wait, what's Vf?
 
Last edited:
  • #193
Vf is really \nu_f, the greek letter nu which means neutrino and "f" for flux.


Entropy, thanks for proving me wrong...or so you think! Let me explain what you did and how it does not work. First, you used the wrong number of neutrinos. You should have used for the amount of neutrino flux on the earth.. Second, you only calculated the amount of energy a neutrino when it is at rest. You forgot to multiply that rest energy by the velocity at which the neutrino travels to get the momentum. Neutrinos travel at nearly the speed of light. So, would be sufficient.

First I did use the neutrion flux on Earth per meter squared.

Do you even know what neutrinos are?

Neutrions have zero rest mass (therefore they don't exist at rest), therefore zero rest energy! All there energy/mass is kinetic energy just like photons! Where do you get this "multiple by the speed of light" BS?
 
Last edited:
  • #194
1 - Pick 2 random angles
2 - Calculate the inverse of the distance of a point at distance 1 along a line project along those angles.
3 - Calculate the inverse of the distance of a point at distance 0.5 along a line project along those angles. (compressed object)
*The inverse of the distance is the force if G*m1*m2 = 1
4 - Repeat about 10000 times
5 - Sum all of these results (all the 2s and all the 3s)
6 - Compare

looks sound to me. try plotting more than 2 points. say like 50 at once all summed together. then do comparisons on their full distance versus 1/2 their distance. and maybe twice their distance for good measure.

i loathe to even think of the possibility that they've overlooked something. this is crazy :D
 
  • #195
terrabyte said:
looks sound to me. try plotting more than 2 points. say like 50 at once all summed together. then do comparisons on their full distance versus 1/2 their distance. and maybe twice their distance for good measure.

i loathe to even think of the possibility that they've overlooked something. this is crazy :D

See step 4. "Repeat 10000 times"

I'll put in a random distance when I get home. (with the compressed taking half of the randomly chosen distance)
 
  • #196
Entropy said:
Vf is really \nu_f, the greek letter nu which means neutrino and "f" for flux.




First I did use the neutrion flux on Earth per meter squared.

Do you even know what neutrinos are?

Neutrions have zero rest mass (therefore they don't exist at rest), therefore zero rest energy! All there energy/mass is kinetic energy just like photons! Where do you get this "multiple by the speed of light" BS?

Alright, thank you for the flux explanation, I assumed v was speed. But that still doesn't explain why you're result is *m^3 and not /m^3 or why there's no time involved (you need energy/time/area or energy/time/volume).

I got the "BS" from E = mc^2. But it doesn't look like you're looking for iniertia anyways, since inertia isn't in J*m/s.
 
  • #197
well 10000 is certainly more than 50 :D

my reading comprehension has taken a severe nose-dive as of late :O
 
  • #198
This whole theory couldn't have ever been right because a neutrino is practically massless, and doesn't have a charge. Which means that it can't interact with the strong forces or the electromagnetic forces. The neutrino was created for a certain purpose, that pupose being the conservation of momentum. In certain decay reaction, it was noted that momentum was not conserved since the secondary particles that are emitted didnt go in opposite directions. This meant that there was another secondary particle involved in the decay that we could not detect. In other words neutrinos can't interact at all using any of the fundamental forces, meaning that they can't apply momentum to us and thus cannot cause gravity.
 
  • #199
WAIT I think I know what I might have done wrong! I've been looking for it long enough too!
 
  • #200
Here we go, I wasn't adding up the vectors. I was adding down forces to up forces instead of subtracting. The new program looks like so:

PHP: 
Option Explicit
Const NumPoints As Long = 100000
Const ObserverDistance As Double = 30
Const ObjectSize As Double = 20
Const CompressionFactor As Double = 0.5
Const NumTests As Long = 50
Const BaseForce as Double = 1000
Const Pi As Double = 3.14159
Private Type Point
    X As Double
    Y As Double
    Z As Double
End Type
Private Sub Form_Load()
Dim A As Long
Dim B As Long
Dim Total As Point
Dim TotalComp As Point
Dim Angle1 As Double
Dim Angle2 As Double
Dim Distance As Double
    Randomize Timer
    For B = 1 To NumTests
        Total.X = 0
        Total.Y = 0
        Total.Z = 0
        TotalComp.X = 0
        TotalComp.Y = 0
        TotalComp.Z = 0
        For A = 1 To NumPoints
            Angle1 = Rnd * 2 * Pi
            Angle2 = Rnd * 2 * Pi
            Distance = Rnd * ObjectSize + 1
            CalculateForce GeneratePoint(Angle1, Angle2, Distance), Angle1, Angle2, Total
            CalculateForce GeneratePoint(Angle1, Angle2, Distance * CompressionFactor), Angle1, Angle2, TotalComp
        Next A
        Debug.Print Format(Sqr(Total.X ^ 2 + Total.Y ^ 2 + Total.Z ^ 2), "0000.000") & ", " & Format(Sqr(TotalComp.X ^ 2 + TotalComp.Y ^ 2 + TotalComp.Z ^ 2), "0000.000")
    Next B
    Unload Me
End Sub
Private Sub CalculateForce(ByRef It As Point, ByVal Angle1 As Double, ByVal Angle2 As Double, ByRef Total As Point)
Dim Force As Double
    Force = BaseForce / Sqr(It.X ^ 2 + It.Y ^ 2 + (It.Z + ObserverDistance) ^ 2)
    Total.X = Total.X + Force * Cos(Angle1) * Sin(Angle2)
    Total.Y = Total.Y + Force * Sin(Angle1) * Sin(Angle2)
    Total.Z = Total.Z + Force * Cos(Rad(FindAngle(ObserverDistance + It.Z, Sqr(It.X ^ 2 + It.Y ^ 2))))
End Sub
Private Function GeneratePoint(ByVal Angle1 As Double, ByVal Angle2 As Double, ByVal Distance As Double) As Point
    GeneratePoint.X = Distance * Cos(Angle1) * Cos(Angle2)
    GeneratePoint.Y = Distance * Sin(Angle1) * Cos(Angle2)
    GeneratePoint.Z = Distance * Sin(Angle2)
End Function
Private Function Rad(ByVal X As Double)
    Rad = X * Pi / 180
End Function
Private Function Deg(ByVal X As Double)
    Deg = X * 180 / Pi
End Function
Private Function FindAngle(ByVal Adjacent As Double, ByVal Opposite As Double) As Double
    If Adjacent Then
        FindAngle = Deg(Atn(Opposite / Adjacent))
        If Adjacent < 0 Then
            FindAngle = FindAngle + 180
        ElseIf Opposite < 0 Then
            FindAngle = FindAngle + 360
        End If
    Else
        If Opposite > 0 Then
            FindAngle = 90
        Else
            FindAngle = 270
        End If
    End If
End Function

It now returns results that make much more sense, the first 3 digits almost always match and after that it's generally chaos, due to the accumulation of rounding errors involved in using floating point variables (double).
 

Similar threads

Discussing Push vs Pull with My Boss
Replies
2
Views
7K
Detecting Gravity Waves: An Exploration of Using Them for Communication
Replies
2
Views
2K
I What happens when an explosion occurs on the surface of the moon?
Replies
5
Views
2K
B How Does Gravity Influence Energy Production in Hydroelectric Generators?
Replies
11
Views
1K
B Does an orbiting mass exert force on what it is orbiting around?
Replies
7
Views
3K
What are the accepted theories for the source of gravity?
Replies
40
Views
6K
B What Causes Mass to Exert Gravitational Pull?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Gravity: Force or Acceleration?
2
Replies
69
Views
7K
I Is dark energy pushing or is it a mirror concept of gravity?
Replies
31
Views
4K
I How weather conditions affect a golf shot
Replies
6
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top